DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/29/2026 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that claim 21 is patentable for the same reasons as amended claim 1. This argument is not persuasive because claim 21 is not commensurate in scope with amended claim 1. Claim 21 was rejected under a separate grounds of rejection, and applicant has not identified any specific limitation of claim 21 that is not taught or suggested by the combination of Ma, Sung and Hu. The rejection remains appropriate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over view of Ma (US 2021/0223461, of record) in view of Sung et al. (US 2023/0069985 of record) in view of Hu et al. (US 2018/0101015, of record).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Ma discloses an optical system, comprising: a wavefront modulation element with a first surface (see annotate Figure A below, which is an annotated Figure 8 of Ma; Examiner notes that the entire device is considered the wavefront modulation element) and a second surface (see annotate Figure A below) disposed opposite to each other (Examiner notes that the first and second surface are disposed opposite to each other, see annotated Figure A below), wherein the first surface of the wavefront modulation element is configured to receive a first light wave (see annotated Figure A below, light enters through the first surface; Examiner notes that the “first light wave” is characterized by an incomplete wavefront, entering the system and propagating through the waveguide) without a complete plane wavefront (Examiner notes that the entrance light is depicted as a set of rays; therefore considered without a complete wavefront), and the second surface of the wavefront modulation element is configured to emit a second light wave (see annotated Figure A below; Examiner notes that the light wave is considered the second light wave once it enters into a complete wavefront at the exit pupils) with a complete plane wavefront (see annotated Figure A below; Examiner notes that Eu’s and Ed’s exit pupils, are a continuous plane with no gaps between; therefore considered a complete plane wavefront) obtained due to light beam shaping of the first light wave by the wavefront modulation element (Examiner notes that the first surface refracts light in order to be modulated by the second surface 31, reflective out-coupling grating).
Ma fails to disclose wherein the first light wave comprises a plurality of segmented plane waves, and at least two adjacent plane waves of the plurality of segmented plane waves partially overlap, and each of the plurality of segmented plane waves has a total wave field with a different amplitude and a different phase and wherein the first light wave is
W
(
x
)
=
Σ
W
.
s
u
b
.
n
(
x
)
=
A
(
x
)
e
x
p
[
i
φ
(
x
)
]
, wherein
W
.
s
u
b
.
n
(
x
)
denotes a light wave of the nth segment at position x,
A
x
denotes an amplitude distribution of the first light wave at position x, and
φ
(
x
)
denotes a phase distribution of the first light wave at position x; the second light wave is
V
(
x
)
=
α
e
x
p
[
i
β
(
x
)
]
, wherein
α
denotes a constant, and
β
(
x
)
denotes a proportional function; and the wavefront modulation element has a complex amplitude transmittance
T
(
x
)
=
t
(
x
)
e
x
p
[
i
ϕ
(
x
)
]
, wherein
t
(
x
)
denotes an amplitude transmittance distribution of the wavefront modulation element and
t
x
=
α
A
(
x
)
, and
φ
(
x
)
denotes a phase distribution of the wavefront modulation element and
ϕ
(
x
)
=
β
(
x
)
+
2
m
π
-
φ
(
x
)
, where m is an integer. Ma and Hu are related because both disclose optical systems. Ma and Sung are related because both disclose optical systems.
Sung teaches wherein the first light wave comprises a plurality of segmented plane waves ([0019] teaches: first laser beam and second laser beam, incident on first region of beam shaping unit), and at least two adjacent plane waves of the plurality of segmented plane waves partially overlap ([0019] teaches: first laser beam and second laser beam may be time-sequentially overlaid, and incident on the beam shaping unit; therefore considered to overlap) each of the plurality of segmented plane waves has a total wave field with a different amplitude and a different phase (Examiner notes that spatially varying amplitude and phase are properties of any spatially modulated optical field and represent an analytical description of the wavefront, not a requirement for discrete physical structures or segmentation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Ma to incorporate the teachings of Sung and provide the first light wave comprises a plurality of segmented plane waves, and at least two adjacent plane waves of the plurality of segmented plane waves partially overlap, and each of the plurality of segmented plane waves has a total wave field with a different amplitude and a different phase. Doing so would allow for improved beam shaping control, and enhanced spatial resolution, thereby improving the overall functionality and quality of the optical system.
Hu teaches wherein the first light wave is
W
(
x
)
=
Σ
W
.
s
u
b
.
n
(
x
)
=
A
(
x
)
e
x
p
[
i
φ
(
x
)
]
( [0025] discloses: 211, laser beam; Examiner notes that 211, laser beam is considered the incoming laser beam; Examiner notes that a laser beam is considered a coherent beam and fits into W(x)), where
W
.
s
u
b
.
n
(
x
)
denotes a light wave of an
n
.
s
u
p
.
t
h
segment at position x,
A
(
x
)
denotes an amplitude distribution of the first light wave at position x, and
φ
(
x
)
denotes a phase distribution of the first light wave at position x; the second light wave is
V
(
x
)
=
α
e
x
p
[
i
β
(
x
)
]
, wherein
□
denotes a constant, and
□
(
x
)
denotes a proportional function; and the wavefront modulation element has a complex amplitude transmittance
T
(
x
)
=
t
(
x
)
e
x
p
[
i
ϕ
(
x
)
]
, wherein
t
(
x
)
denotes an amplitude transmittance distribution of the wavefront modulation element and
t
x
=
α
A
(
x
)
, and
φ
(
x
)
denotes a phase distribution of the wavefront modulation element and
ϕ
(
x
)
=
β
(
x
)
+
2
m
π
-
φ
(
x
)
, where m is an integer ([0025] discloses: 22, shaping element, a phase modulation element or amplitude modulation element; Examiner notes that 22, shaping element, modifies the amplitude and phase of the first light wave into the second light wave; Examiner notes that the shaping elements phase and amplitude modulation satisfies the wavefront modulation elements requirements for complex transmittance).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Bohn to incorporate the teachings of Hu and provide the wave properties limitations stated above. Doing so would allow for enhanced precision and wavefront control, improving the overall performance of the optical system.
PNG
media_image1.png
486
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-15, 17-18, 20, 23 and 25-27 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “wherein the first light wave comprises a plurality of segmented plane waves, and at least two adjacent plane waves of the plurality of segmented plane waves partially overlap, each of the plurality of segmented plane waves has a total wave field with a different amplitude and a different phase, and the plurality of segmented plane waves are formed by a superposition of two light beams hitting the coupling output grating…and a layer element for receiving the second light wave and presenting a target image recorded by the layer element, wherein the layer element includes a Fourier hologram, the layer element is further configured to convert a Fourier spectrum light U(x) into an intensity distribution O(u) of an image observable to human eyes” along with the other structural and functional limitations positively recited in claim 1, in a manner that would be appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 and consistent with search requirements outlined in MPEP § 904.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 9-14 and 25-27 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore allowed by dependency.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “wherein the first light wave comprises a plurality of segmented plane waves, and at least two adjacent plane waves of the plurality of segmented plane waves partially overlap, each of the plurality of segmented plane waves has a total wave field with a different amplitude and a different phase, and the plurality of segmented plane waves are formed by a superposition of two light beams hitting the coupling output grating…and a layer element for receiving the second light wave and presenting a target image recorded by the layer element, wherein the layer element includes a Fourier hologram, the layer element is further configured to convert a Fourier spectrum light U(x) into an intensity distribution O(u) of an image observable to human eyes” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claim 15, in a manner that would be appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 and consistent with search requirements outlined in MPEP § 904.
Claims 17-18, 20 and 23 are dependent on claim 15 and therefore allowed by dependency.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
ConclusionAny inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30 -10/12-6:30 (CT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights